Please Hit

There are MANY expenses associated with running this site, computers, wifi cards, travel to debates and conferences, purchase of research, etc.

Despite what the progressives say, I receive no funding from the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy.

The only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers.

Folks PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going.

Hit the Tip Jar (it's on the left-hand column).

Monday, April 27, 2015

Jake Tapper: WH Correspondent's Dinner Has 'Gotten Out Of Control'

Jake Tapper added his voice to those who believe that "nerd prom" the White House Correspondent's Dinner has "jumped the shark." Tapper was a guest on Monday's Hugh Hewitt Radio Show and after learning the president "borrowed" his bucket routine from Jerry Seinfeld, Tapper and Hewitt discussed the dinner which the CNN Anchor said had "gotten out of control."
Hewitt: Let me ask you about the White House Correspondents Dinner, Jake Tapper. I want to play two things back to back. First of all, here’s the President’s most controversial bit, his bucket list excerpt, cut number one:

Obama (Tape): After the midterm elections, my advisors asked me, Mr. President, do you have a bucket list? And I said well, I have something that rhymes with bucket list. Take executive action on immigration action? Bucket. New climate regulations? Bucket. It’s the right thing to do.

Hewitt: Now Jake Tapper, here’s a second clip. This is Jerry Seinfeld a few months ago using essentially the same routine.

Seinfeld (Tape): A lot of people around this age make a bucket list. I made a bucket list, and I turned the B to an F, and I was done with it.

Hewitt: So the President essentially went on, I can’t play the Seinfeld bit, because he didn’t put in the appropriate thing. Had you heard that the President ripped off Seinfeld to do this?

Tapper: No, I hadn’t, but now that you mention it, I guess I had heard it before. That’s funny. I didn’t know that.

Hewitt: So were you at the dinner?

Tapper: I was. I was. You know, it’s kind of, you know, I saw Chuck there, Chuck Todd, and we were talking about being there, and he had an observation that I think is on target. It’s work. I mean, for, you know, it’s a work thing that you go to. It’s not, I’ll tell you, for my wife, it’s something that she enjoys going to, because she doesn’t really, you know, we don’t go to a lot of fancy dress balls, so it is something that she enjoys gusseting herself up for and going to. But I mean, you know, it’s kind of a drag, and I totally understand why people hate the optics of it, or that people look down on Washington. I saw somebody on Twitter, @redseas, I think it was, saying after watching some coverage or reading tweets about it, he understood the French Revolution a whole lot better.

Hewitt: (laughing)

Tapper: I mean, I understand why people don’t, why people on the left and the right and the center don’t like it. 

Hewitt: But the question is Ezra Klein wrote the President wasn’t being funny. He was being pointed and making commentary, and there’s a debate at Powerline Blog. I’ll have John Hinderaker on later. Did you think it was qualitatively different than years past?

Tapper: I just think it was, it’s so self-congratulatory and self-referential and so self-reverential, and you know, the stuff that it’s supposed to be about, which is the scholarships and the other, you know, recognizing good journalism, are just so overwhelmed and outshone by the parties and the elitism. And it’s just, I don’t know, I just think, look, I’m a member of the White House Correspondents Association. And I think they do important work in pressing for access and in rewarding journalism that speaks truth to power. But I just, to be completely honest, I just think it’s gotten out of control.

Clay Aiken Proves He's A Classless Loser (Calls Victorious Opponent: Bitch, Idiot & Old Snatch)

Perennial runner-up Clay Aiken proved today that along with having a nasty habit of placing second he has a surprising lack of class. As reported in The Hill Aiken was on the Howard Stern show and got personal about Renee Ellmers who kicked his butt when he tried to run for congress.
Aiken appeared on Howard Stern’s SiriusXM radio show on Monday to promote his Esquire Network docu-series “The Runner-Up,” which follows his failed congressional campaign.

“You should see the second episode, because she’s a b----,” Aiken told Stern, referring to Ellmers.

“She’s an idiot,” Aiken said of the 51-year-old lawmaker, “And I think her self-esteem is just in the floor, under the floor.”
Not reported in The Hill was Later in the interview, Stern brought up how it’s sometimes difficult for men to run against women, noting how Rick Lazio was considered too aggressive when he ran for a Senate seat in New York against Hillary Clinton. “We talked about that this year during my campaign, because there was concern during the debate that I would come across as condescending which, if you watched the debate, couldn’t be further from the truth. She was a condescending old snatch.”
An Ellmers spokeswoman said the insults help Aiken live up to the name of his show.

“Mr. Aiken’s crude language and disrespectful demeanor towards the Congresswoman has proven to the American people why he is a runner up,” Blair Ellis told ITK.
Runner up is too nice of a phrase.  The truth is runner up is just a pleasant way of saying "number one loser." That is a more apt description of Clay Aiken, he is nothing but a big classless loser.

UH-OH Watch Out Baltimore: Here Comes Al Sharpton

If there was unrest in Baltimore, you ain't seen nothing yet..because here comes the race card version of an ambulance chaser, the faux reverend Al Sharpton

According to the NY Daily News, Sharpton the supposed preacher who has never heard about the commandment about bearing false witness. will schedule a march from that city to Washington to bring to the doorstep of newly confirmed U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch the deaths of Gray and other black men killed in police custody.  Well he has been out of the headlines for a few days...Al gets ill if someone else gets attention
Sharpton said Monday – the day Lynch was to be sworn in and the day of the funeral for Gray, 25 – that activists and faith leaders had urged him to visit the city after the April 19 death of the young black man. Sharpton said he resisted until he learned that a police report, scheduled to be released Friday, would be delayed.  
Hey Al are you sure they said go to Baltimore? Listen closely they may have only been saying "get the hell out of town."
Baltimore police did not immediately confirm that the report, ordered by Police Commissioner Anthony Batts, would not be released on the scheduled day. The investigation will eventually be forwarded to the state attorney’s office, which will decide whether the arresting officers should be charged for their roles in the death of Gray, who suffered serious spinal injuries.

“It is concerning to me that a deadline that the police themselves had set and announced they have now conveniently changed,” Sharpton said in a statement.
Conveniently? Or they wanted to make sure they did a good job and needed more time.
The group will schedule a two-day march for sometime in May to urge Lynch to quickly investigate the cases involving Gray, Eric Garner, Walter Scott and Eric Harris.
The U.S. Department of Justice has already announced it will investigate Gray’s death, but they did it without Sharpton first getting some publicity so it doesn't count.  But don't worry Al the mainstream media will cover your latest "get Al publicity" stunt because no one in the media has the guts to call you what you really are--an anti-Semitic racial huckster. 

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Pens Desperate Op-Ed Begging The Jews To Stay W/Dems

My friend Javier who runs The Shark Tank writes about an op-ed in the liberal leaning Jewish Telegraphic Agency, written by Democratic Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  Ms. Schultz explains her reasons why she believes Jews should cling to the Democratic party.

Ms Schultz's op-ed says in part:
Growing up, my parents taught me that tikkun olam – repairing the world – is a central tenet and one of the most important outward expressions of our faith. As Jews and as active citizens, it was our responsibility to help and advocate for others. As I grew up, I also sought to exemplify other Jewish values like tzedakah and gemilut hasadim. Like many other American Jews compelled to stand up and speak out for the causes of justice, equality and righteousness in public policy debates, I found a natural home within the Democratic Party.
It is Democrats who seek to right injustice, promote tolerance and constantly strive to move our nation toward a more perfect union. Jews overwhelmingly support women’s rights, workers’ rights, gay rights and civil rights for all Americans. We know that when we help those around us, our community and our country are stronger as a whole. We understand the importance of America as a place of new opportunities, and believe in immigration reform that will pave the path toward a better future that welcomed our ancestors when they arrived on America’s shores. These are values for which Democrats have fought and Republicans have not.
Instead of changing their positions on the issues that matter to American Jews, Republicans have chosen the dangerous strategy of politicizing Israel’s security as their strategy to win over Jewish voters. This strategy is not good for Israel or for the long-term relationship between our two great nations.
Let's put aside for a moment that it was the Democratic Party's walking away from Israel which made Israel a political football, and for the purpose of this posts let us ignore that Ms. Schultz appears on Sirrus/XM Radio's Hanukkah programming each year bragging that she celebrates Hanukkah (which is a holiday about fighting assimilation) going to her friend's house for Christmas.

As far as Jewish traditions matching one party or the other Debbie Wasserman Schultz is 100% wrong.

Republican Party principals such as limited government, individual responsibility and traditional morals are all deeply rooted in Jewish tradition.  Even the fact that America’s founders intended for the county to be led by people who based their political decisions on religious values (something that scares the heck out of most liberal Jews) complements Jewish tradition.

The creation narrative in Genesis explains that man was created in God’s image. But we were also taught that our maker has no bodily form, so how can that be? The Bible is not teaching us that we are all dead ringers for ”big guy upstairs” (if that was the case the pictures on everyone’s drivers licenses would look the same, no one would be able to get a check cashed and CSI would be a very boring TV show).

Created in God’s image is supposed to teach us that just as God acts as a free being without prior restraint to do right and wrong, so does man. God performs good deeds as a matter of his own free choice, and because we are created in his image so can man. The Rabbis teach us that only through free choice, can man truly be in the image of God. It is further understood that for man to have true free choice, he must not only have inner free will but have it in an environment in which a choice between obedience and disobedience exists. God thus created the world such that both good and evil can operate freely; this is what the Rabbis mean when they said, “All is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven” (Talmud, Berachot 33b).  God controls all the options we have, but it is up to man to choose between the correct or incorrect option, or to put it a different way, free will is the divine version of limited government. God picks the winning direction, but does not pick winners and losers.

Because we all are created in God’s image, Jews believe that ”all men are created equal,” meaning that we all have the same ability to be infinitely good or wicked, to be the best we can be based on the talent God gave us, and to forge a relationship with God regardless of intellectual capability, social background, physical strength, etc. Created equal does not mean, as the liberals ascribe to, that when it comes to talents, predilections, or natural abilities we are all equal. Nor does it mean we all should have the same big screen TV, healthcare, high speed internet,  ice cream toppings, or savings account balance.

While Democratic Party politics preaches class warfare, Jewish tradition takes a positive view of both the institution of ownership and the accumulation of wealth. It respects economic success, so as long as it is obtained honestly, and proper respect is shown for the social responsibility to help others that comes with it. That social responsibility is an individual duty and a job for the community led by its religious leaders, but not for the government.
The book of Leviticus (25:23) says “If your brother becomes impoverished and his means falter in your proximity, you shall strengthen him proselyte or resident so that he can live with you”

Notice it says live with you, it does not say live in a government facility that's because the obligation is on the individual. In rare times the community was called on to pick up the slack but it was never the community government's job, it was the local Rabbi who would lead the effort. The Hebrew word for charity tzedaka, has in it root the word tzedek which means righteous, because Jews are taught that personally giving charity is one of the keys to righteousness.

I once read that when God created the world sparks of his holiness were spread across the earth. Every time that a person makes the choice of performing a righteous act one of those sparks is purified and sent back to heaven, through that process we become closer to God.

Liberal Democratic Party government takes away that choice. It assumes that left to our own devices, we will do the wrong thing (or at least what they contend is the wrong thing). Democratic Party big government takes over the role of God, and steps in to control our decisions. Liberalism is anti-Jewish because takes away our personal choice and gives it to the government. That lack of choice retards our spiritual development and most importantly, the opportunity to get closer to our maker.

The Democratic Party teaches that we must always rely on others for a solution.  Again not a Jewish teaching.
Judaism also teaches us that we cannot rely on God to bail us out all of the time, the responsibility to take action falls upon each and every one of us. The Rabbis tell us a story about Moses splitting the Reed Sea which illustrates that lesson (Red Sea was a typo made when the Torah was translated into Greek). In Exodus Chapter 14-15 Moses sees the Pharaoh’s troops bearing down on the Israelite nation who are trapped against the sea. Moses starts praying to God, but God says stop praying and do something! And the Lord said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? Speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward." Yet when Moses lifted his staff the water did not part. The Egyptians were closing in but the sea wasn’t moving. The Israelites stood on the banks of the sea, frozen like a deer in a chariot's headlights, until a man named Nachshon took the responsibility upon himself to act. Nachshon decided to walk into the water. He waded up to his ankles…his knees…his waist… his shoulders, and just as the water was about to reach is nostrils the water parted. It is one thing to have faith and believe God will eventually help us, but we cannot get that help until we take personal responsibility and act on our own.

Sometimes that help does not come in big miracles like the splitting of the sea, but it comes simply, as in the success of one’s endeavors. In June 1967 Israel sent its air force to take out the Egyptian planes just a few hours before they were to be sent to attack the Jewish State, then they prayed for success.

On the other hand the Democratic Party preaches that the government will always bear the responsibility of protecting us; there is no individual responsibility just the collective bailout. Instead of each one of us assuming a personal responsibility and using our good deeds to gain closeness to God, we become part of an overall group with no responsibility. That's why the progressives like to label people, we are not Americans, we are Black, Latino or Jew.  It's just easier to control people that way.

Liberal Democratic Party Jews get very worried when they hear a political leader talk about God. If the political leader is a Christian (as most of them are in the US) they see the person as some sort of zealot who will eventually force everyone to become Christian. If the person is a Jew, they get angry the Jew is wearing their religion on his sleeve.

In the Torah it is God who sets up the first Jewish government, he chose to have a political/ government leader: Moses, and as religious leader Moses' brother Aaron. Even though Moses was the governmental leader, the Torah tells us that Moses used God’s law and morality to make his “political” decisions. In that first Hebrew government set up by God there was no wall separating church and state but the jobs were kept separate. They were separate not to protect government from religion but to protect religion from government. Political leaders were expected to consult with God’s law in making their decisions. Since that was fine for the first government set up by God, it should be acceptable for a government set up by man.

The founding fathers of America agreed. They guaranteed us freedom of religion that means that the Government cannot stop Jews from practicing the rituals and prayers of our faith, but it did not call for a separation of Church and State. In his farewell address, Washington said:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
The Jewish picture of God is of a creator who instilled in us a personal responsibility to do the right thing and provided us with the choice to accept that responsibility or not. That's Just like the tea party. There is no room in Jewish law for a government that forces people to follow their interpretation of the right thing. There is also little room for a Government that does not include religion and morality in their consideration set before they make decisions.

Sorry Ms. Schultz, It is the traditional Republican Party values that best matches Jewish tradition. When it comes right down to it tradition tells us those principals such as limited government, individual responsibility, and traditional family values are all Jewish principals.

Dubya Trashes Obama Foreign Policy

In the six plus years since he left office George W. Bush has remained silent about Obama's policies despite the fact the current President has blamed Bush #41 for everything that has gone wrong in his presidency.

On Saturday in a closed-door meeting with the Republican Jewish Coalition former President Dubya finally commented on Obama's foreign policy...and it wasn't pretty.  Bush opined that Obama had America in retreat throughout the world, was too soft on Iran and ISIS, and didn't follow through on his own threats, "In order to be an effective president ... when you say something you have to mean it, " a complaint that many have made ever since Obama ignored his own Syrian red line.

As reported by Josh Rogin in Bloomberg:
According to the attendee's transcription, Bush noted that Iran has a new president, Hassan Rouhani. “He's smooth," Bush said. "And you’ve got to ask yourself, is there a new policy or did they just change the spokesman?”

Bush said that Obama’s plan to lift sanctions on Iran with a promise that they could snap back in place at any time was not plausible. He also said the deal would be bad for American national security in the long term: “You think the Middle East is chaotic now? Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal.”

Bush then went into a detailed criticism of Obama’s policies in fighting the Islamic State and dealing with the chaos in Iraq. On Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of 2011, he quoted Senator Lindsey Graham calling it a “strategic blunder.” Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to withdraw those troops, but the idea had been to negotiate a new status of forces agreement to keep U.S. forces there past 2011. The Obama administration tried and failed to negotiate such an agreement.

Bush said he views the rise of the Islamic State as al-Qaeda’s "second act” and that they may have changed the name but that murdering innocents is still the favored tactic. He defended his own administration’s handling of terrorism, noting that the terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed to killing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, was captured on his watch: “Just remember the guy who slit Danny Pearl’s throat is in Gitmo, and now they're doing it on TV.”

Obama promised to degrade and destroy Islamic State's forces but then didn’t develop a strategy to complete the mission, Bush said. He said that if you have a military goal and you mean it, “you call in your military and say ‘What’s your plan?’ ” He indirectly touted his own decision to surge troops to Iraq in 2007, by saying, “When the plan wasn’t working in Iraq, we changed.”

“In order to be an effective president ... when you say something you have to mean it,” he said. “You gotta kill em.”